Cargando…

Splenic artery embolization: technically feasible but not necessarily advantageous

BACKGROUND: The spleen is the second most commonly injured organ in cases of abdominal trauma. Management of splenic injury depends on the clinical status of the patient and can include nonoperative management (NOM), splenic artery embolization (SAE), surgery (operative splenic salvage or splenectom...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Van der Cruyssen, F., Manzelli, A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5020467/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27625701
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13017-016-0100-7
_version_ 1782453207741497344
author Van der Cruyssen, F.
Manzelli, A.
author_facet Van der Cruyssen, F.
Manzelli, A.
author_sort Van der Cruyssen, F.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The spleen is the second most commonly injured organ in cases of abdominal trauma. Management of splenic injury depends on the clinical status of the patient and can include nonoperative management (NOM), splenic artery embolization (SAE), surgery (operative splenic salvage or splenectomy), or a combination of these treatments. In nonoperatively managed cases, SAE is sometimes used to control haemorrhage. However, the indications for SAE have not been clearly defined and, in some cases, the potential complications of the procedure may outweigh its benefits. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE: Through review of the literature we address the question of when SAE is indicated in combination with NOM of splenic injury, and whether SAE may delay needed surgical treatment in some cases. This systematic review highlighted the use of imperfect and inconsistent scoring systems in the diagnosis of splenic injury, the lack of consensus regarding indications for SAE, and the potential for severe morbidities associated with this procedure. Based on current literature and evidence we provide a new, non-verified, decision algorithm. CONCLUSIONS: NOM+ SAE involves potential risks and operative management may be preferable to SAE for certain patients. To clarify current literature, we propose a new algorithm for blunt abdominal trauma that should be validated prospectively. New evidence-based protocols should be developed to guide diagnosis and management of patients with splenic trauma. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13017-016-0100-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5020467
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50204672016-09-14 Splenic artery embolization: technically feasible but not necessarily advantageous Van der Cruyssen, F. Manzelli, A. World J Emerg Surg Review BACKGROUND: The spleen is the second most commonly injured organ in cases of abdominal trauma. Management of splenic injury depends on the clinical status of the patient and can include nonoperative management (NOM), splenic artery embolization (SAE), surgery (operative splenic salvage or splenectomy), or a combination of these treatments. In nonoperatively managed cases, SAE is sometimes used to control haemorrhage. However, the indications for SAE have not been clearly defined and, in some cases, the potential complications of the procedure may outweigh its benefits. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE: Through review of the literature we address the question of when SAE is indicated in combination with NOM of splenic injury, and whether SAE may delay needed surgical treatment in some cases. This systematic review highlighted the use of imperfect and inconsistent scoring systems in the diagnosis of splenic injury, the lack of consensus regarding indications for SAE, and the potential for severe morbidities associated with this procedure. Based on current literature and evidence we provide a new, non-verified, decision algorithm. CONCLUSIONS: NOM+ SAE involves potential risks and operative management may be preferable to SAE for certain patients. To clarify current literature, we propose a new algorithm for blunt abdominal trauma that should be validated prospectively. New evidence-based protocols should be developed to guide diagnosis and management of patients with splenic trauma. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13017-016-0100-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2016-09-13 /pmc/articles/PMC5020467/ /pubmed/27625701 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13017-016-0100-7 Text en © The Author(s). 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Review
Van der Cruyssen, F.
Manzelli, A.
Splenic artery embolization: technically feasible but not necessarily advantageous
title Splenic artery embolization: technically feasible but not necessarily advantageous
title_full Splenic artery embolization: technically feasible but not necessarily advantageous
title_fullStr Splenic artery embolization: technically feasible but not necessarily advantageous
title_full_unstemmed Splenic artery embolization: technically feasible but not necessarily advantageous
title_short Splenic artery embolization: technically feasible but not necessarily advantageous
title_sort splenic artery embolization: technically feasible but not necessarily advantageous
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5020467/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27625701
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13017-016-0100-7
work_keys_str_mv AT vandercruyssenf splenicarteryembolizationtechnicallyfeasiblebutnotnecessarilyadvantageous
AT manzellia splenicarteryembolizationtechnicallyfeasiblebutnotnecessarilyadvantageous